Originally Posted by Russell
A 40 some odd year old, overweight man from another era completely was able to win a major title and by and far blow through the 80's and
90's heavyweight scene?
Basically, I'm asking if Foreman's the deciding factor in looking at the quality of the 80's/90's HW scene as opposed to the "golden age" of the 70's.
The closest thing to a direct comparison that we have, considering no one really had the longetivity that big George did.
I understand you jumped on the "i hate the modern HW division" bandwagon.
A 35 year old, with dulled reflexes and speed (who relied "a lot" not completely) on those two things to rule. Was able to clean out a division and win a belt and defend it many times, and impressevily?
My point is, the so called Golden Age is overrated.
There would be no Shavers or Norton if they didnt fight Ali...Wepner..whatever...We remember these people for fighting Ali, its not that Ali was fighting this great opposition its just that people blow it out of proportion when the people he beat for the most part werent that great at all...
Note: I still have great respect for the people who truely were GREAT of that time, I.E. Ali, Frazier, Foreman etc. etc.
I respect the Nortons, Bugners, Shavers, just no more than the Peters, Brocks, and Ibragimovs is all im saying.